Several years ago one of my best (male) friends used to introduce me as "everything a man would be if a man was a woman." It always seemed to get an "aha" response. Even the guys I grew up started using the saying when introducing me after I told one of them. Still, I didn't quite understand the way almost every guy that was told this would get this light bulb going off look. I mean, yes, I love football and hockey. I used to be totally obsessive over cars, might still be over some. Love motorcycles, shooting pool, joined the navy, and well, of course, love my beer. I can talk sport statistics, and even though I don't like basketball, I feel it completely necessary to watch the Sweet Sixteen. Yes, kinda guy-ish. But, that really didn't explain it for me. Really. I mean I'm a bit of a girly girl too. I love cute shoes and Coach purses. So why did this seem to explain me in a nutshell? Well about five years ago, I finally asked one of my oldest friends what he thought. His response was that I carried myself with the confidence of a man. Huh? The most confident woman generally is still only slightly more confident than the least confident man, he explained. I, according to him, carry myself with the confidence of the top 30% of men. Over the last 5 years, I've given this a lot of thought and I've watched men and women gauging this explanation and formulating my own thoughts about it. For one, yes, I do tend to exude the same amount confidence that most men do. Yes, probably 98% of the women don't. But I've made another observation in conjunction. Men may be confident intellectually, but women are more confident emotionally. For men, even the most confident man I've met, lack emotional confidence.
First, what do I mean by emotional confidence? Confidence, as most of us think of it, is that ability to believe in oneself and portray that to others. However, I'd argue that confidence in one's ability, one's general being, at work, in achieving, et cetera is one thing. Emotional confidence allows us to be free to let ourselves be who we are in front of others. Women typically have more emotional confidence. We share our feelings pretty freely. We even often will share them with complete strangers. We are more willing to move on after a divorce or a break up. In fact, statistics show that women are more likely to get over a divorce than men--even when men initiate the divorce. The emotional confidence that is needed to tell ourselves, and more importantly convince ourselves, that everything will be alright seems to be more abundant in women. Why? Well, maybe it's because it also allows us to be vicious emotionally. Women fight with emotion and often cut very deep. One of the reasons that women can be very stand-off-ish to each other may be the primary reason that we are more emotionally confident. We have to be from a young age.
But consider men. Back in the day, I shared an apartment with my cousin, Rick. Rick was a really attractive guy, and yet, I watched him flounder for four months trying to build up the courage to ask out some girl. Rick had girls floundering all over him, following him around like puppy dogs, could've had "the pick of the litter" as my Grams used to say. Yet, he froze like a popsicle whenever this girl was around. I found it hysterical. Still do. A few months back I received a text message from a guy that used to work where I work telling me that he had a crush on me and had picked up my business card before he had left the company. Just wanted to tell me. Didn't live anywhere near me anymore, but finally had worked up the courage to tell me in a text message. Yes, courage. It took 1000 miles and no possibility of rejection for him to even text it. I have another friend in a miserable marriage but his main concern is if he were to get divorced: who would want him? This is a confident, attractive, successful man. Seriously. And his concern is who would want him. My ex-husband spent months hanging out with my friends and me. He was, as far as I was concerned, one of my best friends--nothing more. Never occurred to me that he had a crush on me until the boyfriend I had went into a tizzy one night (another blog perhaps). Funnier, and to my point, my ex still didn't tell me that he had a crush on me. Amazing we ever got together. Oh right, and further to my point, thanks to that ex-boyfriend I ended up eventually asking my ex if he was interested. To my surprise, he was. Men are confident enough when asked--generally, but emotionally putting themselves out there to be shot down? It's not something any of them are leaping all over themselves to do.
Furthermore, I've watched a lot of men give up on things that are important to them for emotional blackmail. Think about it. How many guys do you know that give up hanging out with their friends, watching sports, or even having a beer because the woman they love tells them to? Women tend to give up things when we're younger and even mould ourselves somewhat to the men we choose to be with--liking sports or teams, foods, or whatever, that our men like. Sometimes we're full of sh*t--thus, where the stereotype that women change comes from. The women didn't change; they just got tired of pretending. Men on the other hand, once they are involved--attached emotionally--it's extremely hard for them to lose that bond. They will go to great lengths to keep that bond. The fear of losing an emotional bond for them can be devastating. In fact, the fear of losing an emotional bond actually can prevent them from even starting one in the first place. I have a friend who when someone assumed he was the husband of his girlfriend he disappeared on her. An example of the sterotype that men don't want to be tied down? No, they're married now. For men, admitting that they even have developed an emotional bond can be difficult. Women take emotional bonds for granted; in fact in some cases, we can go from one to the next quite frivolously. I remember an episode of Home Improvement where Tim finds Jill's diary from college and reads where she's talking about the guy she just met that she thinks she's going to marry. Tim assumes it was him, but turns out it was some other guy that she only went out with a couple of times. Truth is that is us, women. But men, well, that bond just doesn't turn itself on and off like it does with us.
Men never give up their oldest and closest friends generally. Giving up their buddies over a spat seems ridiculous to them, but they often won't give up friends that are toxic to their happiness. Does that make sense? Of course not, but giving up bonds is not something men like to do, because it takes them time to develop those bonds. So once they have developed those bonds, they're invested, and it's difficult to give up. Women, on the other hand, can have friends for decades that they will never speak to again because of some minor tiff. There's not a woman reading this that can't think of an example right off the top of her head.
Yes, men are more confident than women. And in general, far more confident than women. But emotionally, women are in the lead. Emotionally, women are more confident and free. It can be argued that it's nature. It can be argued that it's how we are raised. Not sure about that, nor do I think it's relevant. Can men be more emotionally confident? Some are more than others, but something tells me that emotional confidence like confidence might be something that you have or your don't. So, men may not be equipped to take a lashing the way some women assume. Not sure I'm right, just my observations turned into a hypothesis. Maybe I'll be able to call it a theory in a few more years.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Nature or nuture? That is the question.
Where does personality come from? Does it just come to us in our imagination or is it something that comes from DNA? One evening I was talking with a really good friend of mine. He was adopted, and he said that when he found his birth mother and family that a lot of questions about himself seemed to be answered. Are we destined to be who we are from birth or are there choices that we make? The all time most confusing question of all time: nature or nurture? What makes us who we are? What inspires us? Does it come from within or is it experience? I've always believed we all make choices--nurture. But, as I've gotten older, I have to admit that nothing is so black and white, and the reality is not quite so simple. Life is not just nature or just nuture--life is a series of choices. But how much is nature and how much is nuture?
Using myself as the example, as I almost always do in my blogs, I'm the epitome of oxymorons. I'm a girly girl who loves being a tomboy. I'm an engineer, but I love to dabble in sociology type analyses of how people interact, how different personalities can work together and how society, groups, clicks impact our interactions, trials and tribulations. I expect things to fail and plan on contingencies--again, not really an engineering type personality. Yet, I'll analyze something to every nook and cranny of the mind, the interactions, reactions, causes and effects. I'll also pick an endpoint, a goal and/or an achievement point and call it a day. I'm always "one of the boys" which most would think would make it really easy to have a healthy, wonderful relationship with a man, but ironically has proven to make it more difficult than easy. I'm headstrong, directed, an over-achiever. I'm also someone who can and will change my mind under a healthy debate where my opposition can give valid reasoning, logical intent for their determination, and a sound argument why my own analysis is wrong.
Is it nature? My father was one of the greatest minds. Seriously. He could do complex calculations in his head that engineers now expect a computer to complete. He could picture things move, motion, probably even at a molecular level. Daddy was a headstrong mule at times, and most certainly when he was right. A no nonsense person who would always try to do what was right, he made himself a very well respected man in his field and in his personal interactions. Last year when Daddy passed, the one thing that impacted me most wasn't the family that I hadn't seen in years, not how wonderful my baby brothers had turned out, not what a wonderful woman my stepmother had been for my father--although all these things did mean a lot to me. But it was the men who started showing up from 4:30 in the afternoon to 7 in the evening. Men who were coated in dust from demolitions work, electricians, masons, plumbers, painters, construction site guys who most would least expect to show up at a consulting structural design engineer's funeral. A story one of them told me was of how my father, like most consultants, would treat the management, the supervisors, the engineers, to lunch. This isn't surprising to anyone I'm sure. My father obviously made his living by these men and women seeking out his experience and knowledge and paying for it. But, this gentleman, roughly 10 years my senior explained to me that my father always bought lunch for all the workers at the site also. He treated them as if they were equals, not so with most other consultants or even their own management. However, my father never treated anyone as less or more; Daddy viewed all as equal. If I had ever wondered where that desire to treat all equal came from, well, if nature, I have my answer since my father and I had a strained and very distant relationship for several years. My headstrong attitude, the strength that has gotten me through some very rough patches, the desire to treat all equally--these things that are all a very large part of who I am--may have all been simply nature.
Still the dedication, the honesty, the commitment to keep my promises...all of this was already there if we follow the nature, but there was a time that I wasn't that dedicated, I wasn't as honest as I could've been, and commitment was not one of my fortes. As a teenager, I was too angry and lost to be dedicated. I was smart as a whip, but had zero, zilch, nada on the dedication side. As my high school physics teacher worded it in my yearbook, "the most gifted and talented physics student (he) ever had that put absolutely no effort into it at all." That was me. No effort. Dedication was not me. Two days of this or that and I was bored and ready to move on. Honesty, well, sometimes I was--to a fault. And yet, like any other teenager who hasn't realized the impact of their actions, I wouldn't always give honesty a thought. Not that I'd describe myself as dishonest, but it wasn't a fundamental part of who I was--more of an afterthought. Commitment, well bar my commitment phobia that I still suffer from in personal relationships, was not as it is to me now. Today, if I make a promise to someone, my word is my bond. I do not respect people that go back on their word--not that I hold it against them--not all of us see our word as our bond anymore. We choose not to make those commitments, or to break them. It's not nature; it's nuture. We decide. I cannot place a timeframe on exactly when my word became my bond. I know that it was between 19 and 22. I cannot say that something just clicked like a switch going off. It just happened over time. Perhaps a series of fortunate events; perhaps the right mentors. A bad breakup with perhaps the one true love I'd ever had, a professor who wasted a lot of time on convincing me I had talent of some sort, joining the navy, a senior chief who I served with, a master chief who gambled on my abilities, an unsolicited letter of recommendation for an officer's program from my commanding officer. Regardless, my dedication, honesty and commitment are all very intrinsic to who I am now. I believe the ability to be dedicated, honest and have commitment to oneself and others is in all of us. While I believe the intrinsic basics to be honest, committed, and dedicated is in all of us, I believe it is nurture that ensures that intrinsic nature is not overriden by other dynamics of our personalities. It is our own choices; it is who we are if we want to be. It is only difficult if we refuse to make the right choices--which brings us right back to nuture. Nuture is not only the guidance and examples that we are given or receive, but also the choices that we ourselves choose to make.
Personality is an odd word when you think about it. It's a "personal" thing. No two people, even identical twins, have the same personal-ity. There are plenty of methods to analyze a personality--Briggs-Myers, Enneagram, Jungian, Freudian, the four box,... suffice to say we can box each other up as much as we like. Even with these, and even if the modeling is close, it's a fact that sociology, the interaction with others, can have as much and in some cases more impact than the base personality of an individual. Choices, environment, confidence, peers, morals, mindset, emotional stability, trust--all of these and more can cause each of us to react one way or another. Perhaps, we do a great injustice to people when we say that it's nature. People that are abused honestly don't generally turn into psychopaths, pedophiles or abusers themselves. More recent studies have estimates now show that half or more do not. Spanking a child on the butt doesn't result in abusive, unruly teenagers as Dr. Spock hypothesized. In fact, allowing children to run rampant freely seems to make teenagers who go all Columbine. So instead of blaming nature and absolving people of their very personal choices, their very personal-ity, it's probably time that we admit that choices are just as much who we are as the basic DNA, and in fact, probably more.
There's no doubt that my friend found some explanations for how he is when he met his blood. But is he who he is simply because of that? Certainly not. At some point, who he is can be likened to a mixing bowl. If we take a bowl of flour and begin mixing in ingredients, we could end up pancakes, bread, cake or even paper mache mix. It's silly to assume that just because the DNA contributes that it determines what we will be like. It takes away our ability to grow for one, and worse yet, takes away our sense of responsibility--that which helps us choose right over wrong. DNA is the flour, but what is added by others--mentors, siblings, parents, etc.--and what is added by ourselves--choices--make us who we are. Ultimately we choose who we are and who we want to be, and we have no one else to blame if we are not who we should be.
Using myself as the example, as I almost always do in my blogs, I'm the epitome of oxymorons. I'm a girly girl who loves being a tomboy. I'm an engineer, but I love to dabble in sociology type analyses of how people interact, how different personalities can work together and how society, groups, clicks impact our interactions, trials and tribulations. I expect things to fail and plan on contingencies--again, not really an engineering type personality. Yet, I'll analyze something to every nook and cranny of the mind, the interactions, reactions, causes and effects. I'll also pick an endpoint, a goal and/or an achievement point and call it a day. I'm always "one of the boys" which most would think would make it really easy to have a healthy, wonderful relationship with a man, but ironically has proven to make it more difficult than easy. I'm headstrong, directed, an over-achiever. I'm also someone who can and will change my mind under a healthy debate where my opposition can give valid reasoning, logical intent for their determination, and a sound argument why my own analysis is wrong.
Is it nature? My father was one of the greatest minds. Seriously. He could do complex calculations in his head that engineers now expect a computer to complete. He could picture things move, motion, probably even at a molecular level. Daddy was a headstrong mule at times, and most certainly when he was right. A no nonsense person who would always try to do what was right, he made himself a very well respected man in his field and in his personal interactions. Last year when Daddy passed, the one thing that impacted me most wasn't the family that I hadn't seen in years, not how wonderful my baby brothers had turned out, not what a wonderful woman my stepmother had been for my father--although all these things did mean a lot to me. But it was the men who started showing up from 4:30 in the afternoon to 7 in the evening. Men who were coated in dust from demolitions work, electricians, masons, plumbers, painters, construction site guys who most would least expect to show up at a consulting structural design engineer's funeral. A story one of them told me was of how my father, like most consultants, would treat the management, the supervisors, the engineers, to lunch. This isn't surprising to anyone I'm sure. My father obviously made his living by these men and women seeking out his experience and knowledge and paying for it. But, this gentleman, roughly 10 years my senior explained to me that my father always bought lunch for all the workers at the site also. He treated them as if they were equals, not so with most other consultants or even their own management. However, my father never treated anyone as less or more; Daddy viewed all as equal. If I had ever wondered where that desire to treat all equal came from, well, if nature, I have my answer since my father and I had a strained and very distant relationship for several years. My headstrong attitude, the strength that has gotten me through some very rough patches, the desire to treat all equally--these things that are all a very large part of who I am--may have all been simply nature.
Still the dedication, the honesty, the commitment to keep my promises...all of this was already there if we follow the nature, but there was a time that I wasn't that dedicated, I wasn't as honest as I could've been, and commitment was not one of my fortes. As a teenager, I was too angry and lost to be dedicated. I was smart as a whip, but had zero, zilch, nada on the dedication side. As my high school physics teacher worded it in my yearbook, "the most gifted and talented physics student (he) ever had that put absolutely no effort into it at all." That was me. No effort. Dedication was not me. Two days of this or that and I was bored and ready to move on. Honesty, well, sometimes I was--to a fault. And yet, like any other teenager who hasn't realized the impact of their actions, I wouldn't always give honesty a thought. Not that I'd describe myself as dishonest, but it wasn't a fundamental part of who I was--more of an afterthought. Commitment, well bar my commitment phobia that I still suffer from in personal relationships, was not as it is to me now. Today, if I make a promise to someone, my word is my bond. I do not respect people that go back on their word--not that I hold it against them--not all of us see our word as our bond anymore. We choose not to make those commitments, or to break them. It's not nature; it's nuture. We decide. I cannot place a timeframe on exactly when my word became my bond. I know that it was between 19 and 22. I cannot say that something just clicked like a switch going off. It just happened over time. Perhaps a series of fortunate events; perhaps the right mentors. A bad breakup with perhaps the one true love I'd ever had, a professor who wasted a lot of time on convincing me I had talent of some sort, joining the navy, a senior chief who I served with, a master chief who gambled on my abilities, an unsolicited letter of recommendation for an officer's program from my commanding officer. Regardless, my dedication, honesty and commitment are all very intrinsic to who I am now. I believe the ability to be dedicated, honest and have commitment to oneself and others is in all of us. While I believe the intrinsic basics to be honest, committed, and dedicated is in all of us, I believe it is nurture that ensures that intrinsic nature is not overriden by other dynamics of our personalities. It is our own choices; it is who we are if we want to be. It is only difficult if we refuse to make the right choices--which brings us right back to nuture. Nuture is not only the guidance and examples that we are given or receive, but also the choices that we ourselves choose to make.
Personality is an odd word when you think about it. It's a "personal" thing. No two people, even identical twins, have the same personal-ity. There are plenty of methods to analyze a personality--Briggs-Myers, Enneagram, Jungian, Freudian, the four box,... suffice to say we can box each other up as much as we like. Even with these, and even if the modeling is close, it's a fact that sociology, the interaction with others, can have as much and in some cases more impact than the base personality of an individual. Choices, environment, confidence, peers, morals, mindset, emotional stability, trust--all of these and more can cause each of us to react one way or another. Perhaps, we do a great injustice to people when we say that it's nature. People that are abused honestly don't generally turn into psychopaths, pedophiles or abusers themselves. More recent studies have estimates now show that half or more do not. Spanking a child on the butt doesn't result in abusive, unruly teenagers as Dr. Spock hypothesized. In fact, allowing children to run rampant freely seems to make teenagers who go all Columbine. So instead of blaming nature and absolving people of their very personal choices, their very personal-ity, it's probably time that we admit that choices are just as much who we are as the basic DNA, and in fact, probably more.
There's no doubt that my friend found some explanations for how he is when he met his blood. But is he who he is simply because of that? Certainly not. At some point, who he is can be likened to a mixing bowl. If we take a bowl of flour and begin mixing in ingredients, we could end up pancakes, bread, cake or even paper mache mix. It's silly to assume that just because the DNA contributes that it determines what we will be like. It takes away our ability to grow for one, and worse yet, takes away our sense of responsibility--that which helps us choose right over wrong. DNA is the flour, but what is added by others--mentors, siblings, parents, etc.--and what is added by ourselves--choices--make us who we are. Ultimately we choose who we are and who we want to be, and we have no one else to blame if we are not who we should be.
Friday, May 18, 2012
I've failed over and over, and that is why I succeed.
Who makes a champion? Does the champion make themselves? Give a second thought for a moment. Serious thought. Champions exceed expectations. Generally they exceed their own expectations. But who or what is a "champion"? The first definition that most of us like to think of is someone who has defeated all opponents. But is that truly a champion? The original definition of a champion is not the perceived victor, but anyone, win or lose, who defends a cause, an idea, any warrior or fighter is in that sense a champion. The champion was not always the winner. As my Grams used to say, "Sometimes the sign of a true winner is not the person that looks like they've won, but the person who stood by their principles." So many of us no longer stand for any principle, let alone multiple principles. A person who stands by their principles. Perhaps it is also the person who succeeds in spite of being knocked down. But then, what is success? Who defines success? The champion or someone else?
I saw an interview recently with Michael Phelps. Yes, the Michael Phelps who dominated in the last Olympics. The same Michael Phelps who caused a stir because he was caught by a camera doing drugs. The tabloids dragged him down for this--he's not a champion. Is it their call? A tabloid writer--seriously--trying to define a champion? Someone who makes their living trying to drag other people down? I would argue that a bottom feeder like that most certainly would have no idea what makes a true "champion". I find it a bit audacious for someone with a lack of enough respect and ethics to even try to define whether Michael Phelps, or anyone for that matter, is a champion. Michael readily admitted his error. As my grandfather used to say, "it takes a big man to admit his mistakes." It doesn't take a very strong person to pretend like they've done nothing wrong. No, it takes strength of character and mind to admit mistakes. Pretending to be all innocent and not knowing what he was being asked about, or pretending that it was all a big mistake, is not owning up to a mistake and lacks resolve and commitment--let alone the contentious fact that it lacks moral character. So kudos to Michael for standing up with character and resolve--with the fortitude that a champion would stand up with.
More interestingly, guess where this Olympic champion keeps his medals. Guess, seriously, think about it for a second before continuing. Where would you keep a dozen Olympic gold? Above your mantel? Displayed over your bar? Maybe constantly dangling around your neck to ensure that everyone that met you recognized you?....Thought about it enough yet?... Michael Phelps keeps them in a sock, stashed away. Not really all that important. Interesting? I think so. Why? Even more interesting. He didn't really know, other than they were just there. You want to know what I think? I think he doesn't choose to rest on his laurels because it's not about winning. It's not about being "better" than or the "best" compared to anyone else. It's not so shallow for a true champion. It's about the challenge--one's own challange--exceeding expectations. Working hard and seeing something great come to fruition is a rare beauty indeed. Only a champion could appreciate that the work itself and a dream realized as a greater reward than the tangible rewards that others can only envy.
And envy, well, envy is a nasty word. Envy, by current definition, is discontent with regards to what others have, whether real or imagined by the envious person. Discontent. With someone else's achievements, abilities, belongings, looks, et cetera. Seriously. Who goes down this path? We all know, at least mature, mentally healthy, stable individuals know that we can control nothing and no one in this world other than ourselves. Discontent with what someone else is or has is simply idiotic at least. At most, it shows a lack of moral fiber, fortitude, self-recognition and most certainly, self acceptance. But this was only part of the word "envy" years and years ago. Envy is not just the discontent. It was, and really when you think of the envious people that you know, is "ill will". I've never met an envious person that will not work hard, bend over backwards, morally corrupt themselves, literally stoop to no level--no level is low enough for an envious person, to attempt to degrade someone that they envy. Envy is such a debase form of ill will...yes, it is a redundancy upon a redundancy...that many that suffer envy truly believe if they can tear down the champion, whether with fact or fiction, that they will be absolved of their envy. They will not. We can only control ourselves, and someone of that champion disposition will simply rethink their opinions, their approach, their goals will adjust as needed. What would be a devastation for the envious will simply be a bump in the road for the champion.
Michael Phelps will be at the London Olympics. Yes, in full force, ready to try to exceed his own abilities. That is the sign of a champion. I understand this. When I dropped out of college, I didn't know what I wanted, where I wanted to go, who I wanted to be. But I always knew I would have to finish my degree. It was a goal. The naysayers, and there were plenty at times, would tell me a woman couldn't, a single mother couldn't,with 3 young boys I couldn't, that was what a man did, I needed to find a man, who did I think I was, I was a failure, I would fail, there was no chance in hell I would succeed. But the difference from the envious to me, I only needed to be the champion for me and for my children, so nothing they said ever mattered.
Truth is: No champion has never failed. As Michael Jordon once said, "I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." Failure is an obstacle to someone who challenges themselves. Failure is a lesson. Failure is a motivation. But for champions, success does not come without a price, but champions don't succeed because they've stepped on others, but because they have not. The envious know not how it feels to succeed, no matter what laurels they can hang over their mantels, because someone else always has more. They will always have less, be less, and need more, and in the words of a regarded friend, "the fall for those that stepped on people on the way up is a very, very long drop." (That' called karma for those of you that need it pointed out.) The envious can't see themselves as champions and therefore neither will anyone else. They hear the words, but don't really understand the infamous song by Queen...
"I've paid my dues, time after time. I've done my sentence but committed no crime. And bad mistakes--well, I've made a few. I've had my share of sand kicked in my face, but I've come through. We are the Champions, my friend. And we will fight on, til the end."
To the envious it is a thumbing of the nose to the world, a cry of anger. Yet, that wasn't the meaning of the words when Queen wrote them. It is a belief in oneself in spite of the sand kicked, in spite of the failures, in spite of anything that would make goad us into giving up our belief in ourselves. A champion succeeds even when they fail, because they believe in themselves.
I saw an interview recently with Michael Phelps. Yes, the Michael Phelps who dominated in the last Olympics. The same Michael Phelps who caused a stir because he was caught by a camera doing drugs. The tabloids dragged him down for this--he's not a champion. Is it their call? A tabloid writer--seriously--trying to define a champion? Someone who makes their living trying to drag other people down? I would argue that a bottom feeder like that most certainly would have no idea what makes a true "champion". I find it a bit audacious for someone with a lack of enough respect and ethics to even try to define whether Michael Phelps, or anyone for that matter, is a champion. Michael readily admitted his error. As my grandfather used to say, "it takes a big man to admit his mistakes." It doesn't take a very strong person to pretend like they've done nothing wrong. No, it takes strength of character and mind to admit mistakes. Pretending to be all innocent and not knowing what he was being asked about, or pretending that it was all a big mistake, is not owning up to a mistake and lacks resolve and commitment--let alone the contentious fact that it lacks moral character. So kudos to Michael for standing up with character and resolve--with the fortitude that a champion would stand up with.
More interestingly, guess where this Olympic champion keeps his medals. Guess, seriously, think about it for a second before continuing. Where would you keep a dozen Olympic gold? Above your mantel? Displayed over your bar? Maybe constantly dangling around your neck to ensure that everyone that met you recognized you?....Thought about it enough yet?... Michael Phelps keeps them in a sock, stashed away. Not really all that important. Interesting? I think so. Why? Even more interesting. He didn't really know, other than they were just there. You want to know what I think? I think he doesn't choose to rest on his laurels because it's not about winning. It's not about being "better" than or the "best" compared to anyone else. It's not so shallow for a true champion. It's about the challenge--one's own challange--exceeding expectations. Working hard and seeing something great come to fruition is a rare beauty indeed. Only a champion could appreciate that the work itself and a dream realized as a greater reward than the tangible rewards that others can only envy.
And envy, well, envy is a nasty word. Envy, by current definition, is discontent with regards to what others have, whether real or imagined by the envious person. Discontent. With someone else's achievements, abilities, belongings, looks, et cetera. Seriously. Who goes down this path? We all know, at least mature, mentally healthy, stable individuals know that we can control nothing and no one in this world other than ourselves. Discontent with what someone else is or has is simply idiotic at least. At most, it shows a lack of moral fiber, fortitude, self-recognition and most certainly, self acceptance. But this was only part of the word "envy" years and years ago. Envy is not just the discontent. It was, and really when you think of the envious people that you know, is "ill will". I've never met an envious person that will not work hard, bend over backwards, morally corrupt themselves, literally stoop to no level--no level is low enough for an envious person, to attempt to degrade someone that they envy. Envy is such a debase form of ill will...yes, it is a redundancy upon a redundancy...that many that suffer envy truly believe if they can tear down the champion, whether with fact or fiction, that they will be absolved of their envy. They will not. We can only control ourselves, and someone of that champion disposition will simply rethink their opinions, their approach, their goals will adjust as needed. What would be a devastation for the envious will simply be a bump in the road for the champion.
Michael Phelps will be at the London Olympics. Yes, in full force, ready to try to exceed his own abilities. That is the sign of a champion. I understand this. When I dropped out of college, I didn't know what I wanted, where I wanted to go, who I wanted to be. But I always knew I would have to finish my degree. It was a goal. The naysayers, and there were plenty at times, would tell me a woman couldn't, a single mother couldn't,with 3 young boys I couldn't, that was what a man did, I needed to find a man, who did I think I was, I was a failure, I would fail, there was no chance in hell I would succeed. But the difference from the envious to me, I only needed to be the champion for me and for my children, so nothing they said ever mattered.
Truth is: No champion has never failed. As Michael Jordon once said, "I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." Failure is an obstacle to someone who challenges themselves. Failure is a lesson. Failure is a motivation. But for champions, success does not come without a price, but champions don't succeed because they've stepped on others, but because they have not. The envious know not how it feels to succeed, no matter what laurels they can hang over their mantels, because someone else always has more. They will always have less, be less, and need more, and in the words of a regarded friend, "the fall for those that stepped on people on the way up is a very, very long drop." (That' called karma for those of you that need it pointed out.) The envious can't see themselves as champions and therefore neither will anyone else. They hear the words, but don't really understand the infamous song by Queen...
"I've paid my dues, time after time. I've done my sentence but committed no crime. And bad mistakes--well, I've made a few. I've had my share of sand kicked in my face, but I've come through. We are the Champions, my friend. And we will fight on, til the end."
To the envious it is a thumbing of the nose to the world, a cry of anger. Yet, that wasn't the meaning of the words when Queen wrote them. It is a belief in oneself in spite of the sand kicked, in spite of the failures, in spite of anything that would make goad us into giving up our belief in ourselves. A champion succeeds even when they fail, because they believe in themselves.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Being one of the boys...being me...
On the phone one morning with a dealer, I was asked how old I was. I had to chuckle to myself--the guy took my silence to explain that I sounded pretty young. Forty-three, I replied. He was pretty nice about it, but I couldn't help to think to myself after getting off the phone that he would probably be shocked if he saw me. Let's face it, I look like I'm in my 30s and when I've said how old I am, in some cases, I've even been asked for ID to prove it. Doesn't bother me--good genes. Of course, he asked how the weather was up here and I had to tell him rainy but I'm ok with that as long as it's nice on the weekend and won't interfere with my riding time.
"Harley?" he asked.
"Yes, '09 Fatboy."
Well, that was it. If he had any doubts because he might be talking to a youngster or a chick, my Babyboy in one fell swoop had him chattering away at me about what the issue was (oh right for those of you that don't know I work with construction equipment and sometimes people actually call me for help--go figure). Being "one of the boys" has always had its bonuses. It's also always had its negatives. Like everything in life, the positives usually outweigh the negatives.
Of course, it's not all roses. It's tough being a girly girl looking thing and being "one of the boys". I attract guys in the girly sort of way--apparently I'm kinda cute. But many of them are either intimidated by me or by the guys I'm friends with. Insecurity sucks, but it's their issue not mine. I was married to someone that was a bit of a cheating dog--ok, a lot of a cheating dog. I suppose he partially was surprised that I wasn't cool with that; in some way, he probably thought that it wouldn't interfere because if he's a nice looking guy that cheats then a nice looking girl will too. It's pretty unlikely though. Most of the women that I've met that are cheaters and whore-ish in their relationships aren't usually the cuter of the bunch. It's something that, after my divorce, I became acutely aware of. Good looking men get more offers and something about how men think and are raised, well, dating good looking men tends to be more risky when it comes to ending up with a cheater. Of course, not all good looking men cheat--but they will have more opportunities if their relationship goes south. If that was how they were raised, or how their personality is, well, then it doesn't matter how perfect of a woman they have at home. They're wandering like dogs sniffing fire hydrants. (Yea, hard to believe most of my friends are guys...) However, good looking women, generally, when committed, they've had all the offers, heard all the lines, and have had the opportunity to see a lot of what is out the on the table to choose from, so they are less likely to cheat. The homelier the woman, well, odds go up exponentially that if she gets a lot of attention, especially if she's not happy in her relationship or a miserable person, that she will be doing the horizontal mambo with any swinging dog that comes along. It's not an observation that gets made very often. Of course, it's not very often that someone gets to listen to women talk about their dating and sexuality openly and listen to the guys do the same. I've always got to listen to both sides--good in some ways, bad in others. Sometimes, I wished the guys I've been friends with over the years would refrain. I probably know more than most women should know.
Another thing that isn't so great is that most men assume you are with one of the guys that you're hanging out with. As a friend of mine always says, "boys are dumb". It applies. Most guys see a woman hanging out with guys and automatically assume that she's with one of them. That's really a huge negative if I meet someone I'm attracted to. First, very few of my guy friends would pick up on it like my girlfriends. Next, most of my guy friends treat me so much like one of the guys I'm surprised that every lesbian in the room doesn't migrate right for me. Another downside. Lots of lesbians assume that if you are being treated like "one of the boys" by the boys that you have to be playing on their side of the fence. No offense to gay women, but yuck. I get nauseous just thinking about it. Moving on.
The other thing is that some of the guys take razzing too far with the tomboy of the group. I've been part of a group of boys since I was 4. The boys I grew up with--a lot of the time I took more razzing, harrassing, and teasing out of the group than any of the boys combined. It does teach you to take it with your head up, but it's a lot different than girls. Girls are all nicey nice to each other's face--it can be fake as h*ll sometimes--but girls insult and they generally mean it. Boys razz and most of the time barely mean it. I've gotten used to it, but sometimes it's exhausting. Some of the guys do it on overtime and don't know when the hell to let up. Truth is that some of them think that you're the easy prey. Generally they are the guys that never razz the other guys. I also don't really consider them friends. They're *ssholes that are just picking on who they perceive as the weakest link. Unfortunately, most of the other guys will never tell them to let up either. These are the guys that I don't want to work with, hang out with, or otherwise, because unfortunately, no matter what, you'll never be one of them to them. They're closet jerks who believe women belong in the shadow of men, in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, buried in the mediocrisy of being less than a human being. Being able to tell the guys apart from the male chauvinist pigs is often bonus points, but sometimes, I sigh and wonder at what price.
Truth is recently, I've started really thinking about whether I want to be "one of the boys" anymore. It doesn't have a lot of upsides--jealous wives or girlfriends, jealous psychos that feel like you're getting more attention from the guys than they are, men who go out of their way to "put you in your place". But I like me. So I'll just be me. If someone doesn't like that, well, I'm sorry that they're not comfortable with who they are. People that are comfortable with who they are don't really give a crap who other people are. We don't feel the need to judge others when we don't feel we have to judge ourselves. I like myself the way I am, and I'm still going to be me whether I'm "one of the boys" or not.
"Harley?" he asked.
"Yes, '09 Fatboy."
Well, that was it. If he had any doubts because he might be talking to a youngster or a chick, my Babyboy in one fell swoop had him chattering away at me about what the issue was (oh right for those of you that don't know I work with construction equipment and sometimes people actually call me for help--go figure). Being "one of the boys" has always had its bonuses. It's also always had its negatives. Like everything in life, the positives usually outweigh the negatives.
Of course, it's not all roses. It's tough being a girly girl looking thing and being "one of the boys". I attract guys in the girly sort of way--apparently I'm kinda cute. But many of them are either intimidated by me or by the guys I'm friends with. Insecurity sucks, but it's their issue not mine. I was married to someone that was a bit of a cheating dog--ok, a lot of a cheating dog. I suppose he partially was surprised that I wasn't cool with that; in some way, he probably thought that it wouldn't interfere because if he's a nice looking guy that cheats then a nice looking girl will too. It's pretty unlikely though. Most of the women that I've met that are cheaters and whore-ish in their relationships aren't usually the cuter of the bunch. It's something that, after my divorce, I became acutely aware of. Good looking men get more offers and something about how men think and are raised, well, dating good looking men tends to be more risky when it comes to ending up with a cheater. Of course, not all good looking men cheat--but they will have more opportunities if their relationship goes south. If that was how they were raised, or how their personality is, well, then it doesn't matter how perfect of a woman they have at home. They're wandering like dogs sniffing fire hydrants. (Yea, hard to believe most of my friends are guys...) However, good looking women, generally, when committed, they've had all the offers, heard all the lines, and have had the opportunity to see a lot of what is out the on the table to choose from, so they are less likely to cheat. The homelier the woman, well, odds go up exponentially that if she gets a lot of attention, especially if she's not happy in her relationship or a miserable person, that she will be doing the horizontal mambo with any swinging dog that comes along. It's not an observation that gets made very often. Of course, it's not very often that someone gets to listen to women talk about their dating and sexuality openly and listen to the guys do the same. I've always got to listen to both sides--good in some ways, bad in others. Sometimes, I wished the guys I've been friends with over the years would refrain. I probably know more than most women should know.
Another thing that isn't so great is that most men assume you are with one of the guys that you're hanging out with. As a friend of mine always says, "boys are dumb". It applies. Most guys see a woman hanging out with guys and automatically assume that she's with one of them. That's really a huge negative if I meet someone I'm attracted to. First, very few of my guy friends would pick up on it like my girlfriends. Next, most of my guy friends treat me so much like one of the guys I'm surprised that every lesbian in the room doesn't migrate right for me. Another downside. Lots of lesbians assume that if you are being treated like "one of the boys" by the boys that you have to be playing on their side of the fence. No offense to gay women, but yuck. I get nauseous just thinking about it. Moving on.
The other thing is that some of the guys take razzing too far with the tomboy of the group. I've been part of a group of boys since I was 4. The boys I grew up with--a lot of the time I took more razzing, harrassing, and teasing out of the group than any of the boys combined. It does teach you to take it with your head up, but it's a lot different than girls. Girls are all nicey nice to each other's face--it can be fake as h*ll sometimes--but girls insult and they generally mean it. Boys razz and most of the time barely mean it. I've gotten used to it, but sometimes it's exhausting. Some of the guys do it on overtime and don't know when the hell to let up. Truth is that some of them think that you're the easy prey. Generally they are the guys that never razz the other guys. I also don't really consider them friends. They're *ssholes that are just picking on who they perceive as the weakest link. Unfortunately, most of the other guys will never tell them to let up either. These are the guys that I don't want to work with, hang out with, or otherwise, because unfortunately, no matter what, you'll never be one of them to them. They're closet jerks who believe women belong in the shadow of men, in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, buried in the mediocrisy of being less than a human being. Being able to tell the guys apart from the male chauvinist pigs is often bonus points, but sometimes, I sigh and wonder at what price.
Truth is recently, I've started really thinking about whether I want to be "one of the boys" anymore. It doesn't have a lot of upsides--jealous wives or girlfriends, jealous psychos that feel like you're getting more attention from the guys than they are, men who go out of their way to "put you in your place". But I like me. So I'll just be me. If someone doesn't like that, well, I'm sorry that they're not comfortable with who they are. People that are comfortable with who they are don't really give a crap who other people are. We don't feel the need to judge others when we don't feel we have to judge ourselves. I like myself the way I am, and I'm still going to be me whether I'm "one of the boys" or not.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Why I belong...or not
On Wednesday evening last week, I was informed of a conversation that took place at the "buddy bar" of one of the veteran's organizations that I belong to. It included the Post Commander, a Housing Committee member, a Trustee and some other members. It was a discussion on who and how to get rid of the rest of us that they don't like and how to keep out members that they don't want. The conversation was overheard by Ladies' Auxiliary members, one of which had to be talked into staying by the Ladies' Auxiliary President. That' the final straw for me. Let's be frank, telling lies about me, bypassing my due process and ram-roding me is one thing. I know who I am--overly fricking honest and a by the rules type. So no matter what lies are told there are two things I know for sure. One, I know who I am and can be proud of who I am, and two, the truth ALWAYS comes out.
On the other hand, I received an email on Thursday morning about ram-roding another member, because he bought me a beer at a formal function. First, since I am a "by the rules" type, let's be clear what I was told and what a letter with my ram job's punitive action states. It states that I am not allowed canteen privileges. I'm still allowed to attend functions and meetings. This was a function. I purchased nothing in the canteen and did not go into the canteen area except to use the ATM at the beginning of the function and use the bathroom toward's the end. The function was still going on, and I left before it was over because it looked like it was going to rain. Now to be clear: he wasn't the only member who bought me a beer. I was given two others by other members. The first was purchased because I had nothing to drink and when I was asked if the "discipline" I received specified if I could have a drink--soda, beer, whatever--given to me, I knew it did not. I didn't refuse the generosity of these members, nor did I stay passed the end of the function or use the canteen myself.
That being clear as mud, starting with a conversation on Tuesday night to an email on Thursday morning--an attempt to punish one of the members that bought me a beer. He was the last, not the first, to purchase me a beer. Yet, no one else has been brought up on charges. He was the first to leap to my defense when the charges were brought against me without any due process. Who will they go after next? I could probably guess just based on who has defended me.
All that being said, these veteran's organizations are worried about how to get new members in, how to improve retention, and how to best serve our veterans. Well, first, don't let the petty people get out of control. It's human nature for some people, but leadership defines what the petty people do. Adolf Hitler took over Germany with only 17% of the population being Nazis prior to him declaring himself Furher. Only 17%. Fear drove people to follow him, because they immediately started rounding up the opposition and slaughtering them as soon as they could get away with it--which in 1930s Germany was under 60 days. He was a petty little man, and even though good people saw him as such, he still took over their country. I personally find the actions of those people sitting at that buddy bar on Tuesday night deplorable. How to get rid of the people they don't like? How to keep people they don't like from joining? This is what I fought for and defended with my service? This is the comraderie that we earned?
When I got involved, I gave 110%--like I do anything that I do, but all this takes me back to the very first meeting I ever attended--for this particular organization, elections 2 years ago. I was mortified. I actually got so nauseated by the conflict that was being created--at the time completely oblivious to who the sh*t stirrers were--that I stood up and said that they were acting like a bunch of sorority girls and it was ridiculous. If I wanted that drama, I could hang out with my sorority alumni. Which brings us full circle to what started all of this in the first place--one woman's petty jealousy of another woman. Honestly, she's teamed up with the same people that hated her 2 years ago--enemy of the enemy is a frienemy? Damn, if I don't regret walking out of that meeting and never looking back.
On the other hand, I received an email on Thursday morning about ram-roding another member, because he bought me a beer at a formal function. First, since I am a "by the rules" type, let's be clear what I was told and what a letter with my ram job's punitive action states. It states that I am not allowed canteen privileges. I'm still allowed to attend functions and meetings. This was a function. I purchased nothing in the canteen and did not go into the canteen area except to use the ATM at the beginning of the function and use the bathroom toward's the end. The function was still going on, and I left before it was over because it looked like it was going to rain. Now to be clear: he wasn't the only member who bought me a beer. I was given two others by other members. The first was purchased because I had nothing to drink and when I was asked if the "discipline" I received specified if I could have a drink--soda, beer, whatever--given to me, I knew it did not. I didn't refuse the generosity of these members, nor did I stay passed the end of the function or use the canteen myself.
That being clear as mud, starting with a conversation on Tuesday night to an email on Thursday morning--an attempt to punish one of the members that bought me a beer. He was the last, not the first, to purchase me a beer. Yet, no one else has been brought up on charges. He was the first to leap to my defense when the charges were brought against me without any due process. Who will they go after next? I could probably guess just based on who has defended me.
All that being said, these veteran's organizations are worried about how to get new members in, how to improve retention, and how to best serve our veterans. Well, first, don't let the petty people get out of control. It's human nature for some people, but leadership defines what the petty people do. Adolf Hitler took over Germany with only 17% of the population being Nazis prior to him declaring himself Furher. Only 17%. Fear drove people to follow him, because they immediately started rounding up the opposition and slaughtering them as soon as they could get away with it--which in 1930s Germany was under 60 days. He was a petty little man, and even though good people saw him as such, he still took over their country. I personally find the actions of those people sitting at that buddy bar on Tuesday night deplorable. How to get rid of the people they don't like? How to keep people they don't like from joining? This is what I fought for and defended with my service? This is the comraderie that we earned?
When I got involved, I gave 110%--like I do anything that I do, but all this takes me back to the very first meeting I ever attended--for this particular organization, elections 2 years ago. I was mortified. I actually got so nauseated by the conflict that was being created--at the time completely oblivious to who the sh*t stirrers were--that I stood up and said that they were acting like a bunch of sorority girls and it was ridiculous. If I wanted that drama, I could hang out with my sorority alumni. Which brings us full circle to what started all of this in the first place--one woman's petty jealousy of another woman. Honestly, she's teamed up with the same people that hated her 2 years ago--enemy of the enemy is a frienemy? Damn, if I don't regret walking out of that meeting and never looking back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)